scholarly journals OpenDRS: An Open-source 24-hour Recall for Mobile Devices (P13-004-19)

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bess Caswell ◽  
Charles Arnold ◽  
Jennie Davis ◽  
Jody Miller ◽  
Reina Engle-Stone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Portion Size ◽  
Size Estimation ◽  
Nutrition Survey ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Electronic Survey ◽  
24 Hour Recall

Abstract Objectives Our aim was to develop a 24-hour recall program using open-source language that can be readily adapted for use on multiple platforms and in different settings. Methods We developed the Open Dietary Recall System (OpenDRS), a multi-pass, 24-hour recall survey using the XLSForm programming language. XLSForm operates in Microsoft Excel and is used by several free or subscription-based electronic survey platforms that deploy forms via Android devices or online. The first pass collects a brief list of foods consumed, the second pass collects descriptive details and added ingredients for each food, and the third pass collects portion size estimates. The final pass reviews the recorded data with the option to edit or add foods. The program references external food and ingredient lists in .csv format. These food and ingredient lists are customizable for each survey setting, can be coded to match nutrient composition or recipe tables, and can be amended over the course of a study. Questions or response options can be added or edited to fit study-specific data collection methods. Photos can be incorporated for food identification or portion size estimation. Two case studies from adaptations in Malawi and Haiti will be presented. Results OpenDRS was used to collect 24-hour dietary intake data among 6- to 15-month-old children in Malawi, for a randomized, controlled complementary feeding trial. The median number of foods reported was 6, and the median survey duration was 9 minutes. For a national nutrition survey of 6- to 59-month-old children and their caregivers in Haiti, the program was expanded to record recipe data and to capture caregiver and child intakes in one electronic survey form. Recipes reported during the caregiver's recall can be linked to the child's recall if both consumed the same mixed dish. Conclusions OpenDRS is an open-source 24-hour recall program which has been used in low- and middle-income countries. The XLSForm program for data collection and Stata code for data formatting will be made available to researchers conducting nutrition surveys via the Open Science Framework. Funding Sources The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and GAIN.

scholarly journals Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Ebersole ◽  
Maya B. Mathur ◽  
Erica Baranski ◽  
Diane-Jo Bart-Plange ◽  
Nicholas R. Buttrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Expert Review ◽  
Science Collaboration

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect ( p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δ r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols ( r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols ( r = .04) and the original RP:P replications ( r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies ( r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50).

scholarly journals Simple methods to obtain a food listing and portion size distribution estimates for use in semi-quantitative dietary assessment methods

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Hotz ◽  
Lubowa Abdelrahman
Keyword(s):  
Size Distribution ◽  
Dietary Assessment ◽  
Estimation Method ◽  
Portion Size ◽  
Size Estimation ◽  
Dietary Assessment Methods ◽  
Portion Sizes ◽  
Survey Population ◽  
24 Hour Recall ◽  
Portion Size Estimation

AbstractSemi-quantitative dietary assessment methods are frequently used in low income countries, and the use of photographic series for portion size estimation is gaining popularity. However, when adequate data on commonly consumed foods and portion sizes are not available to design these tools, alternative data sources are needed. This study aimed to develop and test methods to: (i) identify foods likely to be consumed in a study population in rural Uganda, and; (ii) to derive distributions of portion sizes for common foods and dishes. A process was designed to derive detailed food and recipe lists using guided group interviews with women from the survey population, including a ranking for the likelihood of foods being consumed. A rapid recall method to estimate portion sizes using direct weight by a representative sample of the survey population was designed and implemented. Results were compared to data from a 24 hour dietary recall. Of the 82 food items reported in the 24 hour recall survey, 87% were among those ranked with a high or medium likelihood of being consumed and accounted for 95% of kilocalories. Of the most frequently reported foods in the 24 hour recall, portion sizes for many (15/25), but not all foods did not differ significantly (p<0.05) from those in the portion size estimation method. The percent of portion sizes reported in the 24 hour recall between the 5th and 95th percentiles determined by the portion size distribution estimation method ranged from a low of 18% up to 100%. In conclusion, a simple food listing and ranking method effectively identified foods most likely to occur in a dietary survey. A simple method to obtain reliable portion size distributions was effective for many foods, while the approach for others should be modified. These methods are an improvement on those in current use.

scholarly journals Many Labs 5: Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Ebersole ◽  
Maya B Mathur ◽  
Erica Baranski ◽  
Diane-Jo Bart-Plange ◽  
Nick Buttrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Expert Review ◽  
Science Collaboration ◽  
Cumulative Evidence

Replications in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If replications use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replications from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) in which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection and only one of which was “statistically significant” (p &lt; .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate (Gilbert et al., 2016). We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replications. We administered the RP:P and Revised protocols in multiple laboratories (Median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5; Range 3 to 9; Median total sample = 1279.5; Range 276 to 3512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, Revised protocols produced similar effect sizes as RP:P protocols following the preregistered analysis plan (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for Revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than the original studies (r = .37). The cumulative evidence of original study and three replication attempts suggests that effect sizes for all 10 (median r = .07; range .00 to .15) are 78% smaller on average than original findings (median r = .37; range .19 to .50), with very precisely estimated effects.

scholarly journals Progressive 24-Hour Recall: Usability Study of Short Retention Intervals in Web-Based Dietary Assessment Surveys (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timur Osadchiy ◽  
Ivan Poliakov ◽  
Patrick Olivier ◽  
Maisie Rowland ◽  
Emma Foster
Keyword(s):  
Dietary Assessment ◽  
Portion Size ◽  
Estimation Methods ◽  
Size Estimation ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Multiple Pass ◽  
The Mean ◽  
24 Hour Recall ◽  
Retention Intervals ◽  
Portion Size Estimation

BACKGROUND Under-reporting because of the limitations of human memory is one of the key challenges in dietary assessment surveys that use the multiple-pass 24-hour recall. Research indicates that shortening a retention interval (ie, the time between the eating event and recall) reduces the burden on memory and may increase the accuracy of the assessment. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to explore the accuracy and acceptability of Web-based dietary assessment surveys based on a progressive recall, where a respondent is asked to record multiple recalls throughout a 24-hour period using the multiple-pass protocol and portion size estimation methods of the 24-hour recall. METHODS The experiment was conducted with a dietary assessment system, Intake24, that typically implements the multiple-pass 24-hour recall method where respondents record all meals they had for the previous day on a single occasion. We modified the system to allow respondents to add multiple recalls throughout the day using the multiple-pass protocol and portion size estimation methods of the 24-hour recall (progressive recall). We conducted a dietary assessment survey with 33 participants, where they were asked to record dietary intake using both 24-hour and progressive recall methods for weekdays only. We compared mean retention intervals (ie, the time between eating event and recall) for the 2 methods. To examine accuracy, we compared mean energy estimates and the mean number of reported foods. Of these participants, 23 were interviewed to examine the acceptability of the progressive recall. RESULTS Retention intervals were found to be, on average, 15.2 hours (SD 7.8) shorter during progressive recalls than those during 24-hour recalls. We found that the mean number of foods reported for evening meals for progressive recalls (5.2 foods) was significantly higher (<i>P</i>=.001) than that for 24-hour recalls (4.2 foods). The number of foods and the amount of energy reported for other meals remained similar across the 2 methods. In interviews, 65% (15/23) of participants said that the 24-hour recall is more convenient in terms of fitting in with their daily lifestyles, and 65% (15/23) of respondents indicated that they remembered meal content and portion sizes better with the progressive recall. CONCLUSIONS The analysis of interviews and data from our study indicate that progressive recalls provide minor improvements to the accuracy of dietary assessment in Intake24. Additional work is needed to improve the acceptability of progressive recalls in this system.

scholarly journals Progressive 24-Hour Recall: Usability Study of Short Retention Intervals in Web-Based Dietary Assessment Surveys

10.2196/13266 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. e13266
Author(s):  
Timur Osadchiy ◽  
Ivan Poliakov ◽  
Patrick Olivier ◽  
Maisie Rowland ◽  
Emma Foster
Keyword(s):  
Dietary Assessment ◽  
Portion Size ◽  
Estimation Methods ◽  
Size Estimation ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Multiple Pass ◽  
The Mean ◽  
24 Hour Recall ◽  
Retention Intervals ◽  
Portion Size Estimation

Background Under-reporting because of the limitations of human memory is one of the key challenges in dietary assessment surveys that use the multiple-pass 24-hour recall. Research indicates that shortening a retention interval (ie, the time between the eating event and recall) reduces the burden on memory and may increase the accuracy of the assessment. Objective This study aimed to explore the accuracy and acceptability of Web-based dietary assessment surveys based on a progressive recall, where a respondent is asked to record multiple recalls throughout a 24-hour period using the multiple-pass protocol and portion size estimation methods of the 24-hour recall. Methods The experiment was conducted with a dietary assessment system, Intake24, that typically implements the multiple-pass 24-hour recall method where respondents record all meals they had for the previous day on a single occasion. We modified the system to allow respondents to add multiple recalls throughout the day using the multiple-pass protocol and portion size estimation methods of the 24-hour recall (progressive recall). We conducted a dietary assessment survey with 33 participants, where they were asked to record dietary intake using both 24-hour and progressive recall methods for weekdays only. We compared mean retention intervals (ie, the time between eating event and recall) for the 2 methods. To examine accuracy, we compared mean energy estimates and the mean number of reported foods. Of these participants, 23 were interviewed to examine the acceptability of the progressive recall. Results Retention intervals were found to be, on average, 15.2 hours (SD 7.8) shorter during progressive recalls than those during 24-hour recalls. We found that the mean number of foods reported for evening meals for progressive recalls (5.2 foods) was significantly higher (P=.001) than that for 24-hour recalls (4.2 foods). The number of foods and the amount of energy reported for other meals remained similar across the 2 methods. In interviews, 65% (15/23) of participants said that the 24-hour recall is more convenient in terms of fitting in with their daily lifestyles, and 65% (15/23) of respondents indicated that they remembered meal content and portion sizes better with the progressive recall. Conclusions The analysis of interviews and data from our study indicate that progressive recalls provide minor improvements to the accuracy of dietary assessment in Intake24. Additional work is needed to improve the acceptability of progressive recalls in this system.

scholarly journals Many Labs 5: Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Ebersole ◽  
Brian A. Nosek ◽  
Mallory Kidwell ◽  
Nick Buttrick ◽  
Erica Baranski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Expert Review ◽  
Science Collaboration ◽  
Cumulative Evidence

Replications in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If replications use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replications from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) in which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection and only one of which was “statistically significant” (p &lt; .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate (Gilbert et al., 2016). We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replications. We administered the RP:P and Revised protocols in multiple laboratories (Median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5; Range 3 to 9; Median total sample = 1279.5; Range 276 to 3512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, Revised protocols produced similar effect sizes as RP:P protocols following the preregistered analysis plan (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for Revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than the original studies (r = .37). The cumulative evidence of original study and three replication attempts suggests that effect sizes for all 10 (median r = .07; range .00 to .15) are 78% smaller on average than original findings (median r = .37; range .19 to .50), with very precisely estimated effects.

scholarly journals Analysis of the National Adult Nutrition Survey (Ireland) and the Food4Me Nutrition Survey Databases to Explore the Development of Food Labelling Portion Sizes for the European Union

Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Gibney ◽  
Aifric O’Sullivan ◽  
Albert Flynn ◽  
Janette Walton ◽  
Hannelore Daniel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Portion Size ◽  
Food Labelling ◽  
Food Diary ◽  
Nutrition Survey ◽  
Portion Sizes ◽  
Food Portion ◽  
Food Portion Size ◽  
The Eu

The present study set out to explore the option of developing food portion size for nutritional labelling purposes using two European Union (EU) dietary surveys. The surveys were selected as they differed in (a) methodologies (food diary versus food frequency questionnaire), (b) populations (Irish National Adult Nutrition Survey (NANS) versus a seven-country survey based on the pan EU study Food4Me), (c) food quantification (multiple options versus solely photographic album) and (d) duration (4 consecutive days versus recent month). Using data from these studies, portion size was determined for 15 test foods, where portion size was defined as the median intake of a target food when consumed. The median values of the portion sizes derived from both the NANS and Food4Me surveys were correlated (r = 0.823; p < 0.00) and the mean of the two survey data sets were compared to US values from the Recognized as Customarily Consumed (RACC) database. There was very strong agreement across all food categories between the averaged EU and the US portion size (r = 0.947; p < 0.00). It is concluded that notwithstanding the variety of approaches used for dietary survey data in the EU, the present data supports using a standardized approach to food portion size quantification for food labelling in the EU.

scholarly journals Learning Open Science by doing Open Science. A reflection of a qualitative research project-based seminar

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-279
Author(s):  
Isabel Steinhardt
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Knowledge Society ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Bachelor's Degrees ◽  
Participatory Technologies ◽  
Digital Knowledge

Openness in science and education is increasing in importance within the digital knowledge society. So far, less attention has been paid to teaching Open Science in bachelor’s degrees or in qualitative methods. Therefore, the aim of this article is to use a seminar example to explore what Open Science practices can be taught in qualitative research and how digital tools can be involved. The seminar focused on the following practices: Open data practices, the practice of using the free and open source tool “Collaborative online Interpretation, the practice of participating, cooperating, collaborating and contributing through participatory technologies and in social (based) networks. To learn Open Science practices, the students were involved in a qualitative research project about “Use of digital technologies for the study and habitus of students”. The study shows the practices of Open Data are easy to teach, whereas the use of free and open source tools and participatory technologies for collaboration, participation, cooperation and contribution is more difficult. In addition, a cultural shift would have to take place within German universities to promote Open Science practices in general.

scholarly journals Managing a Community Data Collection with Open Source Software

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Schweitzer ◽  
Ethan Davis ◽  
Sean Arms ◽  
Robert Simons ◽  
Kevin O'Brien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Community Data
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document